Thread by @Indian_Bronson

"WHAT KINDA' HOOTERS CAN WORK AT HOOTERS?"

This particular lawsuit is interesting.
I hope @Hooters wins it.

Why?

Let's go on a fun journey to explore American Civil Rights law and intersectionality, with some helpful visual aids.

Hooters is a Florida based™ chain of American restaurants which was incorporated on April 1st of 1983, as an April Fools' Day joke, with no expectations of success.

Here is its first Hooters Girl, Lynn Austin, starring in their first commercial:

Today there are over 400 locations.

Despite all attempts of modernity to kill it, from raging feminists, to the MeToo movement, to pretending ugly/crazy men can be women, Hooters endures as a "delightfully tacky yet unrefined" fixture for chicken wings, burgers, fries and beer.

To state the obvious: @Hooters only hires women as the utterly iconic Hooters Girls (the official name of the position):

"She is an American icon the world over"

She sure is! 🫡🦉🦉🇺🇸

Back in 1997, a massive loser called Savino Latuga sued Hooters alleging a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, claiming that Hooters discriminated against him, and all other men in class-action suit, on the basis of their sex

Hooters settled, creating three types of front-of-the-house positions that could accept tips from customers—Staff, Service Bartender, and Host—for which, if offered at any Hooters, all men could apply

𝐁𝐔𝐓

Hooters did NOT agree to hire them, or any men, as Hooters Girls, ever

How was it possible for Courts agree to those terms, and why hasn't suit been brought since?

"Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications"
Specifically:
Section 703(e)(1) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(e)(1) (1976 & Supp. II 1978)



eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/…
uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req…

That's right - the very same Title VII allows employers to discriminate "on the basis of religion, sex, or national origin in those certain instances where [those are] a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation" of the business.

OWNED

But there's a twist: two legal/sociological theories that have gained more and more credence, including invocation in successful lawsuits

Intersectionality and Disparate Impact

Intersectionality says even if you don't cross one group, you may be crossing another group because of how they overlap. For example if you banned "just redheads", you'd ban all of these Irish Hooters Girls.

cf. Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) for some 'inherent' intersection

Disparate Impact theory, which is related, points out discriminatory impact can be disparately suffered by a protected category even though a rule in question *presents* formally as 100% neutral, established by court scrutiny in the landmark case Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971)

So finally, we now turn to this lawsuit: it alleges that not *black* women, but *dark skinned* black women, faced discrimination compared to non-black and lighter skinned black Hooter Girls.

foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/hoot…

How on earth will this be argued to EEOC and courts?
There's no claim of race, but perceived subtype of racial identity

Well

'Being short' isn't being female, but Southwest Airlines was successfully sued for discriminating against male flight attendants because of height caps:

Perhaps the EEOC and Courts will rely on Pantone shades as they measure the albedo of applicants? Perhaps straightened hair will count against Black Hooters Girls?
Perhaps 23&Me will have to provide ancestral evidence, like how Blood Quanta is recognized by the BIA for Natives?

I think this all has the potential to take us to an insane and unworkable place as a country, and that @Hooters prevails in this lawsuit, strengthening employers' Bona Fide Occupational exemptions in hiring, on all kinds of traits, for all kinds of industries.